The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.

Agreed.
Also, the recession has been rough and folks are trying to cut down on spending (as in Entertainment).

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.

As discussed in the "2011 movies" thread, it was actually a decent year for quality films, as long as you weren't looking solely at the Box Office. If you're talking solely about revenue though, 2011 really only had the Harry Potter finale, Transformers 3 and the latest Twilight film.

As for your remark about 2010, it had Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, in addition to Toy Story 3, Inception, Burton's Alice in Wonderland, TRON: Legacy, Iron Man 2, and Twilight: Eclipse. Many would consider at least a few of those as tentpole, must-see-in-the-theater type films.

I am inclined to agree with Ebert's central thesis, which is that a trip to the movies is so expensive and fraught with potential distractions, people hesitate to go see anything short of a certified, Avatar like, blockbuster. I agree with that as far as it goes. Add our current bad economic times and poor consumer confidence to what Ebert says and it's easy to understand why 2011 wasn't a great year for movies.

As discussed in the "2011 movies" thread, it was actually a decent year for quality films, as long as you weren't looking solely at the Box Office. If you're talking solely about revenue though, 2011 really only had the Harry Potter finale, Transformers 3 and the latest Twilight film.

As for your remark about 2010, it had Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, in addition to Toy Story 3, Inception, Burton's Alice in Wonderland, TRON: Legacy, Iron Man 2, and Twilight: Eclipse. Many would consider at least a few of those as tentpole, must-see-in-the-theater type films.

But none of them did $500 million or more which is what Ebert fixated on. And that is why I disagreed with him because 2010 had none, yet it came within $30 million of the biggest BO year the studios ever had in 2009 with the biggest movie of all time - AVATAR.

2010 just proved Ebert is wrong. You don't need a $500 million or a $750 million super blockbuster movie to get people into theater seats.

You just have to stop taking pigs and adding eyeliner and lipstick and proclaiming how good they look.

Ok, I see what you mean. I think we're of the same mindset. Clearly 2010 did alright with the films I mentioned, none of which were insane Avatar-like blockbusters. I think Alice in Wonderland ended up making that much with overseas\\home video sales though.

Ok, I see what you mean. I think we're of the same mindset. Clearly 2010 did alright with the films I mentioned, none of which were insane Avatar-like blockbusters. I think Alice in Wonderland ended up making that much with overseas\\home video sales though.

The International Box Office is doing well. It's the Domestic North American Box Office that is down almost $500 million this year. Studios don't make as much money from international ticket sales, as they do for domestic ticket sales. More companies in "the food chain" internationally.

That is a good article. I think the comments show more insight than the quoted "experts" (it's not a good sign that none of the "experts" acknowledge Hollywood is making bad movies). The best comment is from "Elie". That person summarizes everything very well.

Quote:

1. Most movies suck.

Movies have always followed Sturgeon's Law. But the percentage of badness seems even higher lately. I find myself hard pressed to get excited about new releases. My reaction to almost every trailer I see is "meh".

A lot of these media companies are running on out of date business plans from a past century. Some of them, particularly in radio, are having bad financial problems. I expect that Hollywood companies unless they swing with the economy will become history too.

A lot of these media companies are running on out of date business plans from a past century. Some of them, particularly in radio, are having bad financial problems. I expect that Hollywood companies unless they swing with the economy will become history too.

My fear is that they'll spend as much time lobbying Congress for protection from change as actually dealing with it.

Not a lot of original thought going into mnovie making anymore. I guess it has something to do with the overall cost of making the movie vs the ROI. They want a sure fire thing and making a sequel gets them there with less risk than an original. Its likely that this will get worse before it gets better.

If people would stop seeing them, then the studios would stop making them. I don't think the studios are exactly blameless for taking a cutthroat business approach to filmmaking, but audiences are the reason these things are making money in the first place.

If people would stop seeing them, then the studios would stop making them. I don't think the studios are exactly blameless for taking a cutthroat business approach to filmmaking, but audiences are the reason these things are making money in the first place.

Not a lot of original thought going into mnovie making anymore. I guess it has something to do with the overall cost of making the movie vs the ROI. They want a sure fire thing and making a sequel gets them there with less risk than an original. Its likely that this will get worse before it gets better.

And yet Disney is spending HUGE money on films like JOHN CARTER and THE LONE RANGER.

So what explains the big box office last weekend for a movie "The Devil Inside" that cost less than $1 million to make with no A-list actors? Oh, and is not a remake.

Quote:

Underpinning The Devil Inside's strength were younger moviegoers, who have been largely absent from the multiplex. Nearly 60 percent of Friday night's audience was under the age of 25, and 85 percent of the audience was under the age of 34.

As we begin a new year two decades after this memo was written, it’s critical to look back at the points Katzenberg made to see that his period of great danger is now our period of great danger, to note that the same events unfolding within and without the industry still threaten the entire studio system in 2012, and to predict our future based on the past.

My favorite quote: The answer isn’t more explosions; it’s characters we care about running away from more explosions.